Muslims have gone too far

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But I think that is totally different from Augusta's stance on "no vaginas." If Augusta said that women are not allowed to play, that would be discriminatory. But that is not what Augusta says. They say that everyone playing must possess a penis. No vaginas are allowed. To me, that is not the same as saying "women are not allowed to play."

-----

Your argument essentially says that Augusta WOULDN'T be discriminating if they just used the "must have penis to play" test, rather than saying "no women." They mean the same thing.

While naturally Augusta DOES say women can't play -- my response above is as ridiculous as the one you posted, Rupert. The end-game is the same whether you say "disabled people can't play" or "you have to be able-bodied enough to walk the entire course to play," they accomplish the same thing, one just sounds less nasty, when in practice, there is zero distinction between the two with the exception of how much of an ******* the person saying it sounds like.

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

So if they said "you must have a penis to play," rather than "no women" then you would be okay with that? Because at that point, it's just a rule that everyone needs to follow, and if you're unable to follow that rule, you can't play. It's not designed to keep anyone out, just to protect the integrity of penises and golf. Right?

Any way it's spun, the end-game is the same. Discrimination is discrimination even when it's dressed up in less discriminatory language.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

So if they said "you must have a penis to play," rather than "no women" then you would be okay with that? Because at that point, it's just a rule that everyone needs to follow, and if you're unable to follow that rule, you can't play. It's not designed to keep anyone out, just to protect the integrity of penises and golf. Right?

Any way it's spun, the end-game is the same. Discrimination is discrimination even when it's dressed up in less discriminatory language.

No, I don't think it would be ok to say "you have to have a penis to play" That would be like saying "you need to have a white face to play". That would still be discriminatory.

With regard to your point that "the end-game" is the same, I agree with you that with any rules or laws could end up having an effect on one group of people mre than another group. But that in itself does not make it discriminatory.

If there is an entrance exam to get into a certain school or to get a certain job, and one minority group has a hard time passing the test, does that make the test discriminatory. I guess you could argue that it is discriminatory because of "the end-game" result. I would have to disagree.

Every rule and law has some type of "end-game" effect.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think you can compare the Augusta rule to the PGA Tour rule. The whole point of the Augusta rule is to keep women out. The PGA Tour rule is not designed to keep people out. With the Tour rule, the same rules apply to everyone. Everyone must walk. That is not discriminatory.

But you can compare the PGA to USA law?

the same way you cant compare the Augusta rule to the PGA rule is the same way you cant compare the PGA rule to the USA law.

[Antitrust32]

it IS discriminatory to keep a minority group from having the same tax breaks (with marriage) that the majority group has. that cant be argued. only with bible quotes and unrelated stuff like that. (which supports miraja.. eventhough i still think that was only a small part of the reasoning for DOMA)

golf is golf (tho I do love it)